PDF herunterladen
Facial Plast Surg 2022; 38(05): 440-446
DOI: 10.1055/s-0042-1748954
Original Article

The Need for Innovation in Rhinoplasty

Andrew A. Winkler 
1   Department of Otolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, Colorado
,
Carolyn Chabuz
1   Department of Otolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, Colorado
,
Cameron N. D. McIntosh
2   Private Practice, Edge Day Hospital, Port Elizabeth, South Africa
,
Garyfalia Lekakis
3   Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
› Institutsangaben
› Weitere Informationen
    Lizenzen und Reprints

Abstract

Rhinoplasty is a challenging surgery and results are not always perfect. There are many obstacles to achieving optimal results. Among these are inadequate instrumentation, the unpredictability of healing, imprecise planning, and many more. Furthermore, selecting patients who can most benefit from surgery is equally important. In this article, some of the more pressing areas of rhinoplasty that need innovation are discussed. From proper patient selection, to advances in education, to the standardization of training programs, to the development of sophisticated implants, the future of rhinoplasty surgery lies in continued creativity and innovation.

Keywords

rhinoplasty - aesthetic - implant - education - bioprinting


Publikationsverlauf

Artikel online veröffentlicht:
15. November 2022

© 2022. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc.
333 Seventh Avenue, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10001, USA

 

  • References

  • 1 Roe JO. The deformity termed “pug nose” and its correction, by a simple operation. Med Rec 1887; 31: 621
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Joseph J, Aufricht G. Operative reduction of the size of a nose (rhinomiosis). Plast Reconstr Surg 1970; 46 (02) 178-183
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Joseph J. Nasenplastik und sonstige Gesichtsplastik, nebst einem Anhang über Mammaplastik (Nasal Plastic Surgery and other Facial Plastic Surgery, together with an appendix on Breast Plastic Surgery). Leipzig, Germany: Verlag C. Kabitzsch; 1931
    Google Scholar
  • 4 Wen J, Inthavong K, Tu J, Wang S. Numerical simulations for detailed airflow dynamics in a human nasal cavity. Respir Physiol Neurobiol 2008; 161 (02) 125-135
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Mozell MM, Hornung DE, Leopold DA, Youngentob SL. Initial mechanisms basic to olfactory perception. Am J Otolaryngol 1983; 4 (04) 238-245
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Schroeter JD, Tewksbury EW, Wong BA, Kimbell JS. Experimental measurements and computational predictions of regional particle deposition in a sectional nasal model. J Aerosol Med Pulm Drug Deliv 2015; 28 (01) 20-29
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Liese W, Joshi R, Cumming G. Humidification of respired gas by nasal mucosa. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 1973; 82 (03) 330-332
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Assanasen P, Baroody FM, Rouadi P, Naureckas E, Solway J, Naclerio RM. Ipratropium bromide increases the ability of the nose to warm and humidify air. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2000; 162 (3 Pt 1): 1031-1037
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Godthelp T, Fokkens WJ, Kleinjan A. et al. Antigen presenting cells in the nasal mucosa of patients with allergic rhinitis during allergen provocation. Clin Exp Allergy 1996; 26 (06) 677-688
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Spiegel JH. Rhinoplasty as a significant component of facial feminization and beautification. JAMA Facial Plast Surg 2017; 19 (03) 181-182
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Toriumi DM. New concepts in nasal tip contouring. Arch Facial Plast Surg 2006; 8 (03) 156-185
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Sykes JM, Suárez GA. Chin advancement, augmentation, and reduction as adjuncts to rhinoplasty. Clin Plast Surg 2016; 43 (01) 295-306
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Klabunde EH, Falces E. Incidence of complications in cosmetic rhinoplasties. Plast Reconstr Surg 1964; 34: 192-196
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Teichgraeber JF, Riley WB, Parks DH. Nasal surgery complications. Plast Reconstr Surg 1990; 85 (04) 527-531
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Neaman KC, Boettcher AK, Do VH. et al. Cosmetic rhinoplasty: revision rates revisited. Aesthet Surg J 2013; 33 (01) 31-37
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Lee M, Zwiebel S, Guyuron B. Frequency of the preoperative flaws and commonly required maneuvers to correct them: a guide to reducing the revision rhinoplasty rate. Plast Reconstr Surg 2013; 132 (04) 769-776
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Bouaoud J, Loustau M, Belloc JB. Functional and aesthetic factors associated with revision of rhinoplasty. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open 2018; 6 (09) e1884
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Waite PD. Avoiding revision rhinoplasty. Oral Maxillofac Surg Clin North Am 2011; 23 (01) 93-100 , vi
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 de Souza TSC, Patrial MTCRO, Meneguetti AFC, de Souza MSC, Meneguetti ME, Rossato VF. Body dysmorphic disorder in rhinoplasty candidates: prevalence and functional correlations. Aesthetic Plast Surg 2021; 45 (02) 641-648
    Google Scholar
  • 20 Strazdins E, Nie YF, Ramli R. et al. Association between mental health status and patient satisfaction with the functional outcomes of rhinoplasty. JAMA Facial Plast Surg 2018; 20 (04) 284-291
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Crawford KL, Lee JH, Panuganti BA. et al. Change in surgeon for revision rhinoplasty: the impact of patient demographics and surgical technique on patient retention. Laryngoscope Investig Otolaryngol 2020; 5 (06) 1044-1049
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Perkins SW, Hamilton MM, McDonald K. A successful 15-year experience in double-dome tip surgery via endonasal approach: nuances and pitfalls. Arch Facial Plast Surg 2001; 3 (03) 157-164
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Al Abri R, Al Bassam W, Al-Balushi F, Hlaiwah O, Jaju S, Al-Adawi S. Postoperative functional and cosmetic satisfaction among subjects undergoing open versus endonasal septorhinoplasty: five years' experience from an open-label study at a tertiary care center in Oman. Oman Med J 2020; 35 (02) e120
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Talmadge J, High R, Heckman WW. Comparative outcomes in functional rhinoplasty with open vs endonasal spreader graft placement. Ann Plast Surg 2018; 80 (05) 468-471
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Qian SY, Malata CM. Avoiding pitfalls in open augmentation rhinoplasty with autologous L-shaped costal cartilage strut grafts for saddle nose collapse due to autoimmune disease: the Cambridge experience. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2014; 67 (08) e195-e203
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Barchilon V, Hershkovitz I, Rothschild BM. et al. Factors affecting the rate and pattern of the first costal cartilage ossification. Am J Forensic Med Pathol 1996; 17 (03) 239-247
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Yeolekar A, Qadri H. The learning curve in surgical practice and its applicability to rhinoplasty. Indian J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2018; 70 (01) 38-42
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Sazgar AA, Majlesi A, Shooshtari S, Sadeghi M, Sazgar AK, Amali A. Oral isotretinoin in the treatment of postoperative edema in thick-skinned rhinoplasty: a randomized placebo-controlled clinical trial. Aesthetic Plast Surg 2019; 43 (01) 189-195
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Irvine LE, Nassif PS. Use of 5-fluorouracil for management of the thick-skinned nose. Facial Plast Surg 2018; 34 (01) 9-13
    Artikel in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Pavri S, Zhu VZ, Steinbacher DM. Postoperative edema resolution following rhinoplasty: a three-dimensional morphometric assessment. Plast Reconstr Surg 2016; 138 (06) 973e-979e
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Toriumi DM, Dixon TK. Assessment of rhinoplasty techniques by overlay of before-and-after 3D images. Facial Plast Surg Clin North Am 2011; 19 (04) 711-723 , ix
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 van Loon B, van Heerbeek N, Maal TJ. et al. Postoperative volume increase of facial soft tissue after percutaneous versus endonasal osteotomy technique in rhinoplasty using 3D stereophotogrammetry. Rhinology 2011; 49 (01) 121-126
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Walter C. The evolution of rhinoplasty. J Laryngol Otol 1988; 102 (12) 1079-1085
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Winkler AA, Soler ZM, Leong PL, Murphy A, Wang TD, Cook TA. Complications associated with alloplastic implants in rhinoplasty. Arch Facial Plast Surg 2012; 14 (06) 437-441
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Peled ZM, Warren AG, Johnston P, Yaremchuk MJ. The use of alloplastic materials in rhinoplasty surgery: a meta-analysis. Plast Reconstr Surg 2008; 121 (03) 85e-92e
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Davis PK, Jones SM. The complications of silastic implants. Experience with 137 consecutive cases. Br J Plast Surg 1971; 24 (04) 405-411
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Gu Y, Yu W, Jin Y. et al. Safety and efficacy of cosmetic augmentation of the nasal tip and nasal dorsum with expanded polytetrafluoroethylene. JAMA Facial Plast Surg 2018; 20 (04) 277-283
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Varadharajan K, Sethukumar P, Anwar M, Patel K. Complications associated with the use of autologous costal cartilage in rhinoplasty: a systematic review. Aesthet Surg J 2015; 35 (06) 644-652
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Saadi R, Loloi J, Schaefer E, Lighthall JG. Outcomes of cadaveric allograft versus autologous cartilage graft in functional septorhinoplasty. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2019; 161 (05) 779-786
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 40 Sajjadian A, Naghshineh N, Rubinstein R. Current status of grafts and implants in rhinoplasty: Part II. Homologous grafts and allogenic implants. Plast Reconstr Surg 2010; 125 (03) 99e-109e
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 41 Suh MK, Lee SJ, Kim YJ. Use of irradiated homologous costal cartilage in rhinoplasty: complications in relation to graft location. J Craniofac Surg 2018; 29 (05) 1220-1223
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 42 Vila PM, Jeanpierre LM, Rizzi CJ, Yaeger LH, Chi JJ. Comparison of autologous vs homologous costal cartilage grafts in dorsal augmentation rhinoplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2020; 146 (04) 347-354
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 43 Pfaff MJ, Bertrand AA, Lipman KJ. et al. Cadaveric costal cartilage grafts in rhinoplasty and septorhinoplasty. J Craniofac Surg 2021; 32 (06) 1990-1993
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 44 Justicz N, Fuller JC, Levesque P, Lindsay RW. Comparison of NOSE scores following functional septorhinoplasty using autologous versus cadaveric rib. Facial Plast Surg 2019; 35 (01) 103-108
    Artikel in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 45 Wee JH, Mun SJ, Na WS. et al. Autologous vs irradiated homologous costal cartilage as graft material in rhinoplasty. JAMA Facial Plast Surg 2017; 19 (03) 183-188
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 46 Kridel RW, Ashoori F, Liu ES, Hart CG. Long-term use and follow-up of irradiated homologous costal cartilage grafts in the nose. Arch Facial Plast Surg 2009; 11 (06) 378-394
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 47 Mohan R, Shanmuga Krishnan RR, Rohrich RJ. Role of fresh frozen cartilage in revision rhinoplasty. Plast Reconstr Surg 2019; 144 (03) 614-622
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 48 Cao Y, Sang S, An Y, Xiang C, Li Y, Zhen Y. Progress of 3D printing techniques for nasal cartilage regeneration. Aesthetic Plast Surg 2021
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 49 Chang AA, Reuther MS, Briggs KK. et al. In vivo implantation of tissue-engineered human nasal septal neocartilage constructs: a pilot study. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2012; 146 (01) 46-52
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 50 Kundu J, Shim JH, Jang J, Kim SW, Cho DW. An additive manufacturing-based PCL-alginate-chondrocyte bioprinted scaffold for cartilage tissue engineering. J Tissue Eng Regen Med 2015; 9 (11) 1286-1297
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 51 Fulco I, Miot S, Haug MD. et al. Engineered autologous cartilage tissue for nasal reconstruction after tumour resection: an observational first-in-human trial. Lancet 2014; 384 (9940): 337-346
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 52 Chiesa-Estomba CM, Aiastui A, González-Fernández I. et al. Three-dimensional bioprinting scaffolding for nasal cartilage defects: a systematic review. Tissue Eng Regen Med 2021; 18 (03) 343-353
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 53 Ericsson KA, Prietula MJ, Cokely ET. The making of an expert. Harv Bus Rev 2007; 85 (7-8): 114-121, 193
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 54 Gladwell M. Outliers: The Story of Success. New York: Little, Brown and Company; 2008
    Google Scholar
  • 55 Goodman WS, Charbonneau PA. External approach to rhinoplasty. Laryngoscope 1974; 84 (12) 2195-2201
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 56 Locketz GD, Lui JT, Chan S. et al. Anatomy-specific virtual reality simulation in temporal bone dissection: perceived utility and impact on surgeon confidence. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2017; 156 (06) 1142-1149
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 57 Frendø M, Konge L, Cayé-Thomasen P, Sørensen MS, Andersen SAW. Decentralized virtual reality training of mastoidectomy improves cadaver dissection performance: a prospective, controlled cohort study. Otol Neurotol 2020; 41 (04) 476-481
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 58 Neves CA, Vaisbuch Y, Leuze C. et al. Application of holographic augmented reality for external approaches to the frontal sinus. Int Forum Allergy Rhinol 2020; 10 (07) 920-925
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 59 Adamson PA, Gantous A. Once upon a rhinoplasty: the history of the “queen” of facial plastic surgery. Facial Plast Surg 2019; 35 (04) 322-339
    Artikel in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 60 Sharp EW, Curlewis K, Clarke THS. Stop paying through the nose: student and trainee medical conferences offer better value for money than professional alternatives. Postgrad Med J 2019; 95 (1129): 577-582
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 61 Ioannidis JP. Are medical conferences useful? And for whom?. JAMA 2012; 307 (12) 1257-1258
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 62 Green M. Are international medical conferences an outdated luxury the planet can't afford? Yes. BMJ 2008; 336 (7659): 1466
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 63 Lessing JN, Anderson LR, Mark NM, Maggio LA, Durning SJ. Academics in Absentia: an opportunity to rethink conferences in the age of coronavirus cancellations. Acad Med 2020; 95 (12) 1834-1837
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 64 McIntosh C. The Rhinoplasty Podcast #15 The young guns-Dr. Andrew Winkler. 2021 . Accessed March 24, 2022 at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPBkm_IyBi0
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 65 McIntosh C. The Rhinoplasty Podcast. #15 Dr. Garyfalia (Philio) Lekakis. 2021 . Accessed March 24, 2022 at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dk_4u1RPSj0
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 66 Becker DG, Tardy Jr ME. Standardized photography in facial plastic surgery: pearls and pitfalls. Facial Plast Surg 1999; 15 (02) 93-99
    Artikel in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 67 Hopkins ZH, Moreno C, Secrest AM. Influence of social media on cosmetic procedure interest. J Clin Aesthet Dermatol 2020; 13 (01) 28-31
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 68 Lekakis G, Claes P, Hamilton III GS, Hellings PW. Three-dimensional surface imaging and the continuous evolution of preoperative and postoperative assessment in rhinoplasty. Facial Plast Surg 2016; 32 (01) 88-94
    Artikel in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 69 Lekakis G, Claes P, Hamilton III GS, Hellings PW. Evolution of preoperative rhinoplasty consult by computer imaging. Facial Plast Surg 2016; 32 (01) 80-87
    Artikel in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 70 Null RM. Computer imaging: the manufacturer's perspective. Facial Plast Surg 1990; 7 (01) 26-30
    Artikel in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 71 Choi JW, Kim N. Clinical application of three-dimensional printing technology in craniofacial plastic surgery. Arch Plast Surg 2015; 42 (03) 267-277
    Artikel in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 72 Suszynski TM, Serra JM, Weissler JM, Amirlak B. Three-dimensional printing in rhinoplasty. Plast Reconstr Surg 2018; 141 (06) 1383-1385
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 73 Choi JW, Kim MJ, Kang MK. et al. Clinical application of a patient-specific, three-dimensional printing guide based on computer simulation for rhinoplasty. Plast Reconstr Surg 2020; 145 (02) 365-374
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 74 Weissler JM, Stern CS, Schreiber JE, Amirlak B, Tepper OM. The evolution of photography and three-dimensional imaging in plastic surgery. Plast Reconstr Surg 2017; 139 (03) 761-769
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 75 Klosterman T, Romo III T. Three-dimensional printed facial models in rhinoplasty. Facial Plast Surg 2018; 34 (02) 201-204
    Artikel in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 76 Bekisz JM, Liss HA, Maliha SG, Witek L, Coelho PG, Flores RL. In-house manufacture of sterilizable, scaled, patient-specific 3D-printed models for rhinoplasty. Aesthet Surg J 2019; 39 (03) 254-263
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 77 Herrero Antón de Vez H, Herrero Jover J, Silva-Vergara C. Personalized 3D printed surgical tool for guiding the chisel during hump reduction in rhinoplasty. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open 2018; 6 (02) e1668
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 78 Lekakis G, Hens G, Claes P, Hellings PW. Three-dimensional morphing and its added value in the rhinoplasty consult. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open 2019; 7 (01) e2063
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 79 Mocella S, Bianchi N, Cerini R, Beltramello A. Magnetic resonance imaging in primary and secondary septorhinoplasty. Facial Plast Surg 1996; 12 (04) 321-332
    Artikel in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 80 Graviero G, Guastini L, Mora R, Salzano G, Salzano FA. The role of three-dimensional CT in the evaluation of nasal structures and anomalies. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2011; 268 (08) 1163-1167
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 81 Trattnig S, Springer E, Bogner W. et al. Key clinical benefits of neuroimaging at 7T. Neuroimage 2018; 168: 477-489
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 82 He X, Ertürk MA, Grant A. et al. First in-vivo human imaging at 10.5T: imaging the body at 447 MHz. Magn Reson Med 2020; 84 (01) 289-303
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 83 Behrbohm H, Briedigkeit W, Kaschke O. Father of modern facial plastic surgery. Arch Facial Plast Surg 2008; 10 (05) 300-304
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar